A family member has a deposit in on one. He's said hes getting it so he can drive in the HOV lane. (CA)

He's a guy who used to drive big Mercedes, but switched to the prius so he didn't have to sit in traffic when they started doing HOV stickers. I think he always missed the large luxury cars, so for him the model S serves both purposes.

Okay, sure, you're correct, but my statement is in reference to fuels that power automobiles with internal combustion engines. Outside of BMW's and Honda's hydrogen cars, which aren't for sale BTW, not seeing many uranium-power cars out there. Stay on topic dude.

You can lease a hydrogen car though, so it's out there if you want it. Hence, still on topic.

Well, my math is not off. I used Tesla's fuel cost calculator on their website. Using my commute of 160 miles a day (I actually used 185 miles a day for running errands and such) and a Tesla s with the mid-range 60KW battery, the electric cost at .12 KWh is $6.28 per charge cycle. 194,000 miles devided by 185 miles per charge is 1,049 charges. 1,049 charges times $6.28 is $6,586 total cost for electricity for 194,000 miles.

I've spent $23,306 (7,212 gallons) of gasoline in the E90 for those 194,000 miles. Normal maintenance (i.e. no abmormal repairs) for the E90 is $8,706

That's all well and good and I love crunching numbers quite a bit as well. As you point out below, considering the niche the Tesla resides in, the horsepower it has, and its size, the numbers work out much better when it's compared to something more in its class.

Not that a 528 is in its class, but it certainly swept it there in terms of energy consumption, 0-60 times, hp/tq, carbon footprint, etc, etc.

From motortrend:
During our drive, we used 78.2 kW-hrs of electricity (93 percent of the battery's rated capacity). What does that mean? It's the energy equivalent of 2.32 gasoline gallons, or 100.7 mpg-e before charging losses. That BMW 528i following us (powered by a very fuel-efficient, turbocharged, direct-injected 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine) consumed 7.9 gallons of gas for a rate of 30.1 mpg. The Tesla's electrical energy cost for the trip was $10.17 (at California's average electrical rate); the BMW's drive cost $34.55. The 528i emitted 152 lbs of CO2; the Model S, 52 -- from the state's power plants.

According to my friends who work on this stuff, battery tech is venturing into an exciting era of growth and advancements.

The best thing they have on the horizon is doubling the capacity using a new porous membrane. Unfortunately its also going to cause the battery to wear out considerably quicker. And that is disruptive technology, the first disruptive technology we have seen in decades.

I think as city cars alone they do work well but for over the road they just don't work. Its not that I don't want them to work, its just that they don't. I would put money that hydrogen will beat cars to a feasible drive across the continent. And for most people they cant afford a $75k car for the city only and then another to go to grandmas house.

I'd love a Tesla X The specs are....amazing.. to say the least. With a little improvement it would be a monster of a car in basically every situation. Who needs the S when the X will be just as fast and way more rounded.

Hydrogen powered electric vehicles have tremendous potential. Unfortunately, producing it requires as much energy as you get out of it, meaning a huge investment in dedicated alternative energy power plants to produce it. Getting it to the gas stations will require another huge investment in new distribution and delivery infrastructure. And the logistics of storing it in your vehicle, either at near absolute zero in liquid form or under tremendously high pressures in a special tank, don't look too good or safe either right now.
Since our economy is built on the concept of generally doing things as cheaply as possible, this may never happen in our lifetimes. However, if we could pull this off in the next 10 - 20 years I do believe that stopping the shipment of all of our dollars overseas to quench are insatiable oil thirst will solve nearly every single problem our country has!
THINK ABOUT IT!

Yeah, the biggest problem with hydrogen is safety. Cryo storage is hard both from a cost perspective and an energy perspective (which obviously boils down to cost). Pressurizing it and chilling it to liquid form basically negates any of the benefits. I mean, not really, it's still not fossil fuel, thus is better, but if you need megawatts to run your car, point being it gets out of balance fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dozhdbog

Incorrect. Nuclear has much more, and hydrogen does as well.

Nuclear for sure. Gaseous hydrogen has far and away higher specific energy (energy per unit mass), but much much much lower energy density (energy per unit volume). Which is the real problem - the fundamental limit becomes how large the car must be to house the hydrogen tanks. Of course, that only impacts range, which for a fuel system that can be rapidly replaced like gasoline or hydrogen, is sort of irrelevant. Sure, people will bitch that they have to fill up every 200 miles, but if the infrastructure is there, it's not ACTUALLY an issue, whereas range on BEVs is everything since it's to be assumed that a fillup means a break in trips.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

Tesla's marketing strategy is to go after the luxury car buyer. The less powerful, less range, less money market is covered by the Volt and Leaf.

That said, if Tesla made a 3 series size model that had a 200 mile range with a net cost of $40K, I'd be very interested.

Well, their ultimate strategy is to get to the everyman. They just planned on starting with high cost luxury cars knowing that the people who could afford them would be all over it, building up their business and status. Which is a pretty darn good plan, if you ask me. Look at what they've done: the S is a much, much better car than the roadster, and they've managed to knock down the starting price tens of grand. They're definitely on the right path, and at a good clip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gds52

I don't like the name Tesla !!! Tessssssslaaaaaaa.....
Don't know if i will like the car....lol

Tesla was a mothereffing BOSS. In his time, what he practiced was basically magic, not engineering. By any formal definition, Tesla's work was far into the spectrum of magic as any human's has ever been in history. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

Also, by virtue of the Red Alert games, the name "Tesla" sort of gives you the idea that your car can shoot bolts of lightning at other annoying drivers on the road, which, even if wildly off base, is a super fun thought.

I have to say, I probably won't end up with a tesla (unless the next model after the X is a compact sedan that will do 400 miles on a charge and 0-60 in <6s). But that's only because I fully intend that my next car after my current 3 will be 100% designed and built by me. A BEV as well, even, unless some better energy storage is commercialized by then (I've got my eye on a couple technologies, but they likely won't see consumer availability for another 10y or so).

In the mean time, I'll probably end up getting a Zero motorcycle and some solar panels to charge it as my daily driver. I don't generally go more than 100 or 200mi in an average week, so that should work out great.

You can lease a hydrogen car though, so it's out there if you want it. Hence, still on topic.

Well maybe if I moved. So let's call a spade a spade:

"The FCX Clarity FCEV is officially out on the road. A limited number of these groundbreaking vehicles are currently being leased to select Southern Californians.* Honda plans to deliver about 200 FCX Clarity FCEVs to customers in the first three years of our fuel cell lease program."

*Subject to limited availability, in designated, limited California market regions, to approved lessees by American Honda Finance Corp. Closed end lease for FCX Clarity FCEV, for qualified lessees meeting specific use and operation requirements. Not all applicants will qualify. No purchase option. Zero capitalized cost reduction. Taxes, license, title fees, liability insurance extra. Monthly payments of $600.00 for 36 months. Total monthly payments $21,600.00. No mileage limitation or excess mileage cost. See one of three authorized FCX Clarity FCEV dealers for complete details.

It's not a car, it's an experiment to collect real-world data. The same market principles apply for the FCX Clarity as the Tesla.

I really think the idea of an electric car is great. The Tesla S is a an excellent step.

That's all well and good and I love crunching numbers quite a bit as well. As you point out below, considering the niche the Tesla resides in, the horsepower it has, and its size, the numbers work out much better when it's compared to something more in its class.

Not that a 528 is in its class, but it certainly swept it there in terms of energy consumption, 0-60 times, hp/tq, carbon footprint, etc, etc.

From motortrend:
During our drive, we used 78.2 kW-hrs of electricity (93 percent of the battery's rated capacity). What does that mean? It's the energy equivalent of 2.32 gasoline gallons, or 100.7 mpg-e before charging losses. That BMW 528i following us (powered by a very fuel-efficient, turbocharged, direct-injected 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine) consumed 7.9 gallons of gas for a rate of 30.1 mpg. The Tesla's electrical energy cost for the trip was $10.17 (at California's average electrical rate); the BMW's drive cost $34.55. The 528i emitted 152 lbs of CO2; the Model S, 52 -- from the state's power plants.

We do know that Tesla warranties their batteries for at least 8 years/100k, so battery replacement before then can be covered.

Thanks. I had already read that article in August. I'd like to see the math on how MT calculated the CO2 emissions for Charging theTesla's battery (@52 pounds). I think it is low. I don't think they are counting for various tranmission losses to get the electricity into the battery. I'd go 20% total, so it's still way less than the Bimmer, and calcs for me around 66 pounds.

But back to the discussion regarding the battery. So if I run the numbers for my car at 100,000 miles it comes out as this: Notes; I estimated the cost of maintenance by just cutting it in half assuming a constant cost per mile for maintenance. My car was well paid off by 100,000 miles so I kept the same cost for the "Vehicle Cost" number.

If you did the math on the original numbers from my other post, the delta operating costs between the two cars at 194,000 miles was $10,512 (more for the Tesla). Working the math on the numbers above, the delta at 100,000 miles is now $21,316. So it shows that to make the Tesla work as a viable alternative to an ICE car you need to drive it to a very high mileage to amortize the initial cost (price) of the car. If the battery doesn't last up to the high mileage range (over 150,000 to 200,000 miles) then all bets are off. I'd bet the battery replacement for a 60KWh Tesla battery is near $20K.

The best thing they have on the horizon is doubling the capacity using a new porous membrane. Unfortunately its also going to cause the battery to wear out considerably quicker. And that is disruptive technology, the first disruptive technology we have seen in decades.

I think as city cars alone they do work well but for over the road they just don't work. Its not that I don't want them to work, its just that they don't. I would put money that hydrogen will beat cars to a feasible drive across the continent. And for most people they cant afford a $75k car for the city only and then another to go to grandmas house.

This is an interesting point, Electrics as city cars. It seems to me living in a city such as New York City, or Washington D.C., having a BEV car would be a total PIA. Most city dwellers live in apartments or townhomes so how to safely charge a plug-in electric seems to be an issue. The viability of the electric car works on the concept of charging it overnight when it is not in use.

In a city environment this is difficult for two reasons: vandalism and parking density. In most large cities cars are stored in high density parking garages where the cars are constantly moved to gat access to other (owners) cars when needed. This proves difficult for consistant charging and leaving the plugging-in to someone (other than the owner) who has no interest in whether the car is fully charged or not. The vandalism issue is self explanatory.

Eh, not really. All the valet garages I've been in in LA have BEV chargers in dedicated spots, mostly unused. One can only assume that that extends to more regular spots as they increase in deployment. Having a system where charge leads hang down above spots isn't unreasonable.

Street parking is a bigger problem, but again, there are plenty of parking lots with charge points around here. One can imagine streets getting them.

Eh, not really. All the valet garages I've been in in LA have BEV chargers in dedicated spots, mostly unused. One can only assume that that extends to more regular spots as they increase in deployment. Having a system where charge leads hang down above spots isn't unreasonable.

Street parking is a bigger problem, but again, there are plenty of parking lots with charge points around here. One can imagine streets getting them.

Ah, so then you don't need a car in the first place then, which is really the point....

I don't know what you're getting at, but a couple months back I had the choice to live in LA or move to manhattan instead. I went with LA and bought a car, being out on the beach with bad public transport. If I'd moved to Manhattan, I wouldn't have a car, it'd be wildly impractical. I previously lived in Boston, and didn't have a car there either. Again, completely unnecessary.

At any rate, having to move around a charge lead in a city parking spot isn't really a practical limitation any more so than having to fill up or pay the meter.

Vandalism is also a silly concern. If you're parking in the city, your car is subject to vandalism electric or otherwise.

I don't know what you're getting at, but a couple months back I had the choice to live in LA or move to manhattan instead. I went with LA and bought a car, being out on the beach with bad public transport. If I'd moved to Manhattan, I wouldn't have a car, it'd be wildly impractical. I previously lived in Boston, and didn't have a car there either. Again, completely unnecessary.

At any rate, having to move around a charge lead in a city parking spot isn't really a practical limitation any more so than having to fill up or pay the meter.

Vandalism is also a silly concern. If you're parking in the city, your car is subject to vandalism electric or otherwise.

What I'm getting at is the point that electric cars are touted as a better vehicle than an ICE vehicle for a person who lives in a city. You made my point by showing that NOT having a car altogether is even better still for a city dweller. So, if no car is better than an ICE-powered car for city life, then an electric is pointless too.

And by vandalism, I mean that it could be a possibility that a vandal, just to be an asshole, would unplug your electric car while it is charging overnight, leaving you with an under-charged car for the next day...